View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Effects of Pitch Source on Pitch-Matching and Intonation Accuracy of Collegiate Singers

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Effects of Pitch Source on Pitch-Matching and Intonation Accuracy of Collegiate Singers
Language: English
Authors: Nápoles, Jessica, Springer, D. Gregory (ORCID 0000-0001-7923-726X), Silvey, Brian A., Adams, Kari
Source: Journal of Research in Music Education. Oct 2019 67(3):270-285.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: College Students, Music Education, Singing, Intonation, Accuracy, Music Techniques
DOI: 10.1177/0022429419863034
ISSN: 0022-4294
Abstract: In this study, we examined the effects of multiple reference pitch sources on collegiate singers' accuracy in pitch-matching and intonation tasks. We also investigated which reference pitch source participants preferred and for what reasons. Participants (N = 99) sang a two-measure excerpt of "Joseph Dearest, Joseph Mine" after listening to the starting pitch of A on a pitch pipe, the piano, a vocal hum, or a tuning fork in two conditions. For one tuning fork condition, participants' starting pitch was an A, the same pitch as the tuning fork. For the other tuning fork condition, their starting pitch was a G, a different pitch than the tuning fork. We selected two pitches for analysis, each corresponding to the first syllable of the word "Joseph." We then analyzed pitch deviation of the two target notes from the reference pitch in each condition. Participants were most accurate in response to the piano and least accurate in response to the tuning fork when their starting pitch was a G. Participants expressed preference for the piano (37.12%) as their pitch source, followed closely by the pitch pipe (33.33%).
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1229912
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHDJjvoyxE55yjVW36uZNllAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDG3W18TySev5brVVeQIBEICBmwbZc8YpAB8X0PcJcjQaDP2FSR_iLCd3_-815bEb4y4yeQbrbuJgU_qLzJ2oPmk6Sk44uT9QQFa9RRlZmepTtonKIw6YmtD8r9YgNpEULUiwO-Ix7q4EeNrOaaYXQdJl5rEoNsKJWQN3RdiMhOZ-BpeTgT9iWA6ufgReF7CsJm7mMwC0LgmPotwynsIbkCs4ct_yICYpEMfzuR-p
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0138849715;3ug01oct.19;2019Sep30.02:15;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0138849715-1">Effects of Pitch Source on Pitch-Matching and Intonation Accuracy of Collegiate Singers </title> <p>In this study, we examined the effects of multiple reference pitch sources on collegiate singers' accuracy in pitch-matching and intonation tasks. We also investigated which reference pitch source participants preferred and for what reasons. Participants (N = 99) sang a two-measure excerpt of Joseph Dearest, Joseph Mine after listening to the starting pitch of A on a pitch pipe, the piano, a vocal hum, or a tuning fork in two conditions. For one tuning fork condition, participants' starting pitch was an A, the same pitch as the tuning fork. For the other tuning fork condition, their starting pitch was a G, a different pitch than the tuning fork. We selected two pitches for analysis, each corresponding to the first syllable of the word Joseph. We then analyzed pitch deviation of the two target notes from the reference pitch in each condition. Participants were most accurate in response to the piano and least accurate in response to the tuning fork when their starting pitch was a G. Participants expressed preference for the piano (37.12%) as their pitch source, followed closely by the pitch pipe (33.33%).</p> <p>Keywords: tuning fork; pitch matching; intonation; pitch pipe; singing accuracy</p> <p>The term <emph>intonation</emph> may seem imprecise because it involves the accumulation of a variety of related subskills, including pitch discrimination and pitch matching, which are applied uniquely in various musical contexts ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref1">36</reflink>]). Previous research findings from intonation studies have indicated several important trends. First, researchers have found a notably weak relationship between perception (pitch discrimination) and performance (pitch matching), suggesting that these skills are indeed separate abilities ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref5">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref6">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref7">46</reflink>]). Second, both music performers and listeners have demonstrated a proclivity and preference for sharpness ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref8">16</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref9">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref10">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref11">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref12">57</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref13">60</reflink>]). Finally, many authors have reported that intonation accuracy improves with increases in age and experience ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref16">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref17">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>Musical context also plays an influential role in intonation perception and performance. For example, musicians of three experience levels sang descending intervals more "in tune" relative to equal temperament than ascending intervals ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref18">30</reflink>]), and this difference was statistically significant. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref19">57</reflink>] found similar results, reporting that university string musicians performed ascending intervals significantly sharper than descending intervals. The opposite tendency existed among other instrumentalists, who performed descending intervals significantly sharper than ascending intervals ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref20">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref21">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref22">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>The timbre and octave of a stimulus can also affect musicians' intonation perception and performance. In two separate studies ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref23">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref24">20</reflink>]), university music majors' judgments of equal-interval pitch deviations differed significantly as a function of stimulus timbre (i.e., trumpet, violin, or voice). Furthermore, university and high school musicians confused intonation with timbre because they associated dark timbres with flatness and bright timbres with sharpness ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref25">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref26">53</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref27">56</reflink>] also found that high school and university musicians performed significantly sharper in response to bright-timbre stimuli and flatter in response to dark-timbre stimuli. Likewise, stimulus timbre appears to have an effect on intonation performance tasks. For instance, high school instrumentalists performed with significantly less accuracy while trying to match a stimulus provided by the tuba as compared to a flute, oboe, or clarinet ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref28">6</reflink>]), but more advanced instrumentalists were not impacted in the same way ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref29">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Researchers have sought to understand singers' pitch accuracy as a function of stimulus timbre, with the gender of the vocal model being one element that has been isolated. Many researchers have found that children matched pitch better to a female model than to a male model ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref30">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref31">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref32">59</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref33">22</reflink>] findings indicated that children experienced the most success in pitch matching with another child's voice, as opposed to an adult female or male. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref34">34</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref35">55</reflink>] both recommended that adult males should model for children in their falsetto range, essentially imitating a female's voice. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref36">58</reflink>] investigated the relationship between vibrato in the vocal model and pitch matching, and the children in their study responded significantly better to an adult female nonvibrato model than to either an adult female vibrato model or a child model. When taken together, the findings of these studies appear to suggest that children will have the greatest likelihood of pitch-matching success with vocal models that sound most like their own voice—treble and without vibrato.</p> <p>Previous research findings have indicated that age may also have an impact on success in pitch-matching tasks because not all age groups respond similarly. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref37">48</reflink>], for example, suggested that male vocal modeling did not necessarily present unique pitch-matching problems to first-grade children. Using different age groups, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref38">18</reflink>] compared preschoolers' and fourth graders' pitch-matching and pitch-discrimination abilities. Fourth graders were significantly better at pitch matching but not better at pitch discrimination. Fourth graders displayed better singing accuracy than did third graders in [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref39">9</reflink>] study. With high school students, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref40">54</reflink>] male singers matched significantly more accurately with a male model, while female students matched a female model best. Based on the findings of these studies, there appears to be a consistent trend that pitch-matching accuracy tends to improve with age. However, this improvement does not seem to transfer to pitch discrimination or octave displacement.</p> <p>Other researchers have compared vocal models with other nonvoice models to determine effective sources for pitch matching. For example, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref41">41</reflink>] concluded that children responded to a female model with significantly more accuracy than to a flute, and [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref42">26</reflink>] observed that children responded to a female model with significantly more accuracy than to a piano or oscillator. In another study, uncertain singers matched pitch more accurately to male singers than to sine waves ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref43">42</reflink>]), and these differences were significant. Vocal models appear to be more effective pitch sources for children and uncertain singers than do nonvocal models.</p> <p>There are other variables that have been found to affect singers' pitch-matching accuracy. Some of these variables are related to musical characteristics, such as whether the task is presented in the context of a melody versus a single pitch ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref44">10</reflink>]), the duration of the tones sung ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref45">14</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref46">15</reflink>]), and whether there is accompaniment ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref47">25</reflink>]). Other influential factors are related to the singers themselves, such as speech range and speech fundamental frequency ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref48">52</reflink>]), the gender of the singer ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref49">24</reflink>]), the home musical environment of the singer ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref50">40</reflink>]), and whether the singer performs individually versus in unison with others ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref51">24</reflink>]). Clearly, pitch matching is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon that is not fully understood. Yet, it is usually the case that choir teachers make decisions regularly about how initial pitches should be provided to their singers to ensure pitch-matching success.</p> <p>Choral directors have multiple pitch source options to provide a reference pitch for their singers to match, including their own voices, a piano, a pitch pipe, or a tuning fork. We found no empirical data regarding the differential success of each approach. In one practitioner article, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref52">7</reflink>] referenced the tuning fork as a substitute for the piano because "constant use of the piano causes students to rely upon it as a crutch for intonation" (p. 19). They also suggested that the use of the tuning fork could potentially assist with the development of relative pitch. In an online survey of choir director preferences, a respondent expressed a preference for tuning forks, claiming that "they are preferable to pitch pipes because no one can hear the pitch other than the pitch giver" ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref53">37</reflink>]). Common practice for choristers who use pitch pipes or tuning forks is for one singer to pass the given pitch to other choir members in the form of a hum prior to performing it, essentially asking them to match a hummed pitch. Furthermore, sometimes the pitch giver strikes a tuning fork and then transposes the reference pitch before passing it to others (i.e., in circumstances where the starting pitch of the song is different from the fixed pitch of the tuning fork). More research is needed to help determine the differential success of various pitch sources.</p> <p>With the intention of providing empirical evidence to support best practices in choral pedagogy, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of multiple reference pitch sources on singers' accuracy in pitch-matching and intonation tasks. Specifically, we were interested in investigating not only their success at matching the starting pitch of a melody (a pitch-matching task) but also their ability to sing that same pitch with accuracy later in the context of the melody (an intonation task). The following research questions guided this study: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>) Will singers' pitch-matching accuracy differ based on reference pitch source (pitch pipe, piano, vocal hum, tuning fork playing an A when singers' starting pitch is an A, tuning fork playing an A when singers' starting pitch is a G)? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref55">2</reflink>) Will participants' subsequent melodic intonation accuracy differ depending on the reference pitch source? and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref56">3</reflink>) Which reference pitch source will participants prefer, and for what reasons?</p> <hd id="AN0138849715-2">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0138849715-3">Pilot Studies</hd> <p>In this study, participants sang five trials of a short excerpt of <emph>Joseph Dearest, Joseph Mine</emph> (see Figure 1) using different pitch sources: a piano, a tuning fork, a pitch pipe, or a prerecorded hum. We chose this song because it was a simple, diatonic melody composed around a descending major triad, with one repeated syllable (the first syllable of <emph>Joseph</emph>) on the same pitch that could function as target pitches for analysis. We conducted three pilot studies to determine which protocols would be most effective for participants. In our first pilot study, we examined how much time the average participant would take to learn the pitches and rhythms of the excerpt. Our pilot participants (<emph>N =</emph> 5) averaged 15 seconds, with the longest time lasting 17 seconds. For the present study protocol, we added 5 seconds to that time (22 seconds total) so that an even slower sight-singer could experience success when learning the melody. Next, we chose a tempo that allowed singers to sing the phrase in one breath to maintain a full, supported sound. Our pilot participants (<emph>N</emph> = 6) were most comfortable with the tempo of 120 beats per minute (bpm). For our final pilot study (<emph>N</emph> = 5), we selected a key that was comfortable for all singers, irrespective of voice type. The key of D major was determined by the tuning fork default pitch (A) because the excerpt began on the fifth scale degree. We presented singers with a second tuning fork condition that required them to begin on a note other than the pitch of the tuning fork. For this condition, we pilot tested the keys of C and E major, either one whole step above or below the default tuning fork pitch. Our pilot participants experienced greatest pitch-matching success with the C major excerpt.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Excerpt sung by participants. Analysis tones are circled.</p> <hd id="AN0138849715-4">Preparation of Stimuli</hd> <p>To ensure consistency between trials and three data collection sites, we recorded the hum and piano starting pitches in advance using a Zoom H2 Handy recorder. For both hum conditions, we recorded an upper and lower octave A with a female and a male voice, respectively. While recording several trials of their hums, singers used the tuning application Tonal Energy ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref57">50</reflink>]) to assist with their pitch accuracy. We then analyzed the hum files to find the portion where the pitch was most stable and trimmed them to approximately 5 s each. Because neither pitch was exactly 440/220 Hz, we used the mean pitch for each hum (447.9/218.9 Hz) as the comparison pitch when analyzing pitch deviation in the trials utilizing the hum pitch source. We also recorded the piano (acoustic) starting pitches in both octaves, each sounding for approximately 5 s with the use of the sustain pedal. The primary author verified these piano pitches at 440/220 Hz. We also verified the pitch pipes and tuning forks for the three research sites at 440 Hz for the A pitch.</p> <hd id="AN0138849715-5">Design and Procedure</hd> <p>We used a within-subjects research design in which participants served as their own controls. All participants provided informed consent to participate using Institutional Review Board–approved forms, and they completed the procedures individually in one of our faculty offices. When participants arrived, we greeted them, administered a brief demographic questionnaire, and read the following instructions:</p> <p>You are about to sing a two-measure excerpt of <emph>Joseph Dearest, Joseph Mine</emph> five separate times. Before completing these tasks, you will be allowed to practice the excerpt in any manner that you wish for approximately 20 seconds. After receiving the pitch A from either a tuning fork, pitch pipe, piano, or as a pre-recorded hum, I will instruct you to sing the two-measure excerpt. Please sing the excerpt on text in your most comfortable octave. You will sing the excerpt five times using each of these pitch sources, and you will hear distractor music between each trial. If you have any questions, please ask them now.</p> <p>Participants then practiced the excerpt for up to 22 s using any strategies they wished.</p> <p>During the practice session, we let participants hear the metronome at 120 bpm for reference, then we turned off the metronome when they sang the repeated trials of the excerpt. Participants sang the excerpt five times using the following pitch sources: vocal hum, piano, pitch pipe, and two tuning fork conditions. We used two tuning fork conditions because in common practice, tuning forks are used to provide choristers a single, fixed reference pitch (A = 440 Hz) regardless of the key in which the music is sung. Therefore, we included one condition in which the tuning fork sounded the starting pitch of the song (A, scale degree five in the key of D major). We used another condition in which the tuning fork sounded the A, but the actual starting pitch was a G (scale degree 5 in the key of C major), requiring the singer to transpose the excerpt by a whole step. Participants viewed the excerpt in the transposed key during this trial, and we alerted them that they would be singing the entire melody a whole step lower. For purposes of simplicity, hereafter, we refer to this condition as <emph>tuning fork G</emph> and the condition that started on A as <emph>tuning fork A</emph>.</p> <p>We played the vocal hum and piano stimulus recordings using iTunes on a laptop computer connected to a Bose Soundlink speaker. We played the pitch pipe stimuli using a Kratt MK1S pitch pipe. For the tuning fork conditions, we used a Planet Waves tuning fork and struck the tuning fork for participants and brought it to their ear. To help control for order effects, we randomly assigned participants to one of five presentation orders by using a 5 × 5 Latin square design.</p> <p>As used in previous research ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref58">46</reflink>]), we played a 15-s excerpt of Edgard Varèse's <emph>Amériques</emph> as distraction music between each trial to reduce participants' tonal memory of the stimulus pitch. At the conclusion of the final performance trial, participants responded in writing to the following open-ended questions: "Which of the pitch sources did you prefer? Why?"</p> <hd id="AN0138849715-6">Participants</hd> <p>Before recruiting participants, we calculated the necessary sample size for ensuring statistical power of.80 ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref59">8</reflink>]) by using G*Power 3.1.9.2 software ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref60">13</reflink>]). Given our use of a repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variation (MANOVA), a significance level of α =.05, and an effect size of.05, we calculated a minimum sample size of 100. We initially recruited 112 undergraduate college musicians who were currently singing in choral ensembles at one of three university schools of music located in the midwestern, southwestern, or southeastern United States. We solicited participants via in-class announcements at choral ensemble rehearsals at these same institutions. Using the [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref61">51</reflink>] Explore function, we identified 13 outliers, whose performance in any of the conditions deviated by 1.5 times the interquartile range ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref62">39</reflink>]). After removing these outliers, the final sample included 99 participants. There were 49 male and 50 female participants who reported their age (<emph>M</emph> = 19.8 years, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.02), degree program (choral music education, <emph>n</emph> = 57; voice performance, <emph>n</emph> = 16; other music, <emph>n</emph> = 7, and nonmusic, <emph>n</emph> = 19), year in school (freshman, <emph>n</emph> = 29; sophomore, <emph>n</emph> = 24; junior, <emph>n</emph> = 22; senior, <emph>n</emph> = 20), years of private voice lessons (<emph>M</emph> = 3.72, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.67), and years of performing in a choral ensemble (<emph>M</emph> = 7.93, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.98). Four participants did not identify their year in school.</p> <hd id="AN0138849715-7">Data Analyses</hd> <p>As illustrated in Figure 1, the excerpt of <emph>Joseph Dearest, Joseph Mine</emph> (in the original key) begins on an A, and that A is repeated one measure later on the same syllable. In the transposed key, the excerpt began on a G. We chose these two pitches for analysis and considered the first task a pitch-matching task (in that singing the first pitch reflects their ability to match the pitch source) and the second task an intonation task (in that we were examining participants' ability to stay in tune during the performance of a melody). We chose these particular pitches because they were both sung on the same syllable (the first syllable of <emph>Joseph</emph>) and because they both occurred on the downbeat of the measure, which made them similar in quality and emphasis within the musical phrase. Although the final note was also the same pitch, we chose not to analyze it because of its close proximity to the previous pitch (two beats earlier). We trimmed all of the excerpts using [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>] software and exported trimmed files into Praat ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref64">4</reflink>]) for pitch analyses. For each participant, we calculated mean frequencies of both target pitches in all conditions. We calculated deviation values by comparing frequencies of the two pitches to the frequencies of the stimulus they had heard during each tuning procedure. We then used an online calculator ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref65">45</reflink>]) to determine cent deviation scores, which were interpreted in absolute value and used for analysis purposes. These procedures were replicated from tuning studies involving instrumentalists ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref66">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref67">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref68">46</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0138849715-8">Results</hd> <p>After determining that data (cent deviation values) from the three institutions were drawn from similar populations (<emph>p</emph> >.05), we analyzed whether the data met assumptions for a MANOVA. MANOVA procedures carry assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity, random selection, a linear relationship among variables, and an absence of multicollinearity ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref69">33</reflink>]). Correlations among pitch-matching and intonation variables within the same pitch sources ranged from.47 to.90. Given this violation of the multicollinearity assumption, we instead conducted two separate repeated-measures analyses of variance, one for each of the dependent variables (pitch matching and intonation), with a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha level to control for the potential problem of inflated error rates due to "probability pyramiding" ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref70">27</reflink>], p. 306).</p> <p>Results for both tests indicated a significant main effect for the within-subjects factor, pitch source, which affected participants' pitch matching, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref71">4</reflink>, 376) = 36.00, <emph>p</emph> <.001, partial η<sups>2</sups> =.27, and intonation, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref72">4</reflink>, 376) = 42.58, <emph>p</emph> <.001, partial η<sups>2</sups> =.31. Follow-up comparisons, with Bonferroni corrections, indicated significant differences in the pitch-matching analyses between the tuning fork G condition and all other pitch sources (tuning fork G and tuning fork A, <emph>p</emph> <.001, Hedge's <emph>g</emph> = 2.99; tuning fork G and pitch pipe, <emph>p</emph> <.001, Hedge's <emph>g</emph> = 3.07; tuning fork G and piano, <emph>p</emph> <.001, Hedge's <emph>g</emph> = 3.18; tuning fork G and hum, <emph>p</emph> <.001, Hedge's <emph>g</emph> = 2.64). In addition, there were significant differences in pitch matching between the piano and hum pitch sources (<emph>p</emph> <.001, Hedge's <emph>g</emph> =.54) and between the pitch pipe and hum pitch sources (<emph>p</emph> =.03, Hedge's <emph>g</emph> =.42). For intonation analyses, mean cent deviations were also significantly different between the tuning fork G condition and all other pitch sources (tuning fork G and tuning fork A, <emph>p</emph> <.001, Hedge's <emph>g</emph> = 3.95; tuning fork G and pitch pipe, <emph>p</emph> <.001, Hedge's <emph>g</emph> = 3.91; tuning fork G and piano, <emph>p</emph> <.001, Hedge's <emph>g</emph> = 4.14; tuning fork G and hum, <emph>p</emph> <.001, Hedge's <emph>g</emph> = 3.43) and between the hum and all other pitch sources (hum and tuning fork A, <emph>p</emph> <.05, Hedge's <emph>g</emph> =.52; hum and pitch pipe, <emph>p</emph> <.05, Hedge's <emph>g</emph> =.48; hum and piano, <emph>p</emph> <.05, Hedge's <emph>g</emph> =.70). For context, as with Cohen's <emph>d</emph>, a <emph>g</emph> value of.2 or lower is regarded as a small effect, a <emph>g</emph> value of.5 is a medium effect, and a <emph>g</emph> value of.8 or higher is a large effect. If <emph>g</emph> is bigger than 1, the difference between the means is larger than one standard deviation. Anything larger than 2 signifies that the difference is larger than two standard deviations ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref73">38</reflink>]). Descriptive statistics for participants' mean cent deviations in all conditions are provided in Table 1. We did not find significant main effects for order, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref74">4</reflink>, 94) =.43, <emph>p</emph> =.78, and there was no significant interaction between order and pitch source.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 1. Mean Cent Deviation by Pitch Source.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Pitch Source</th><th align="center">Measure</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">a</xref></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Tuning fork A</td><td>Pitch matching</td><td>27.34</td><td>24.77</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Intonation</td><td>25.66</td><td>17.30</td></tr><tr><td>Pitch pipe</td><td>Pitch matching</td><td>25.79</td><td>21.83</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Intonation</td><td>26.31</td><td>17.73</td></tr><tr><td>Piano</td><td>Pitch matching</td><td>23.58</td><td>17.90</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Intonation</td><td>22.59</td><td>18.63</td></tr><tr><td>Tuning fork G</td><td>Pitch matching</td><td>84.19</td><td>84.99</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Intonation</td><td>90.87</td><td>90.51</td></tr><tr><td>Hum</td><td>Pitch matching</td><td>33.89</td><td>20.46</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Intonation</td><td>34.28</td><td>24.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 a Means are expressed as cent deviation in absolute value.</p> <p>As displayed in Table 1, mean cent deviations for the pitch-matching task were smallest (i.e., participants matched pitch better) when singing in response to the piano (<emph>M</emph> = 23.58 cents, <emph>SD</emph> = 17.90). Participants matched pitch with the least accuracy in the tuning fork G condition (<emph>M</emph> = 84.19, <emph>SD</emph> = 84.99). This trend was also evident for the intonation task with the piano (<emph>M</emph> = 22.59, <emph>SD</emph> = 18.63) and tuning fork G (<emph>M</emph> = 90.87, <emph>SD</emph> = 90.51) pitch sources resulting in the most and least accurate performances, respectively. Of the four tasks that did not involve transposition, participants were least accurate matching pitch (<emph>M</emph> = 33.89, <emph>SD</emph> = 20.46) and subsequently singing in tune (<emph>M</emph> = 34.28, <emph>SD</emph> = 24.00) after hearing a hummed pitch.</p> <p>To examine the effect of pitch sources without the transposition task, we removed the tuning fork G condition and conducted an additional analysis. There were significant main effects for pitch matching, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref75">3</reflink>, 294) = 5.39, <emph>p</emph> <.01, partial η<sups>2</sups> =.05, and for intonation, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>, 294) = 9.04, <emph>p</emph> <.001, partial η<sups>2</sups> =.08. Follow-up comparisons indicated significant differences between the hum and all other conditions for pitch matching (hum and pitch pipe, <emph>p</emph> <.05, Hedge's <emph>g</emph> =.42; hum and piano, <emph>p</emph> <.001, Hedge's <emph>g</emph> =.54) and for intonation (hum and tuning fork A, <emph>p</emph> <.01, Hedge's <emph>g</emph> =.52; hum and pitch pipe, <emph>p</emph> <.05, Hedge's <emph>g</emph> =.48; hum and piano, <emph>p</emph> <.001, Hedge's <emph>g</emph> =.70). Clearly, the overall effect size was much smaller when removing the tuning fork G condition, further depicting how much variability was explained by the transposition task. And effect sizes between pairwise comparisons were medium, with the largest difference in intonation between the hum and piano conditions. Participants responded differently to the pitch sources with respect to both matching the reference pitch and keeping the pitch in tune, even outside of the transposition task.</p> <p>In answering our final research question regarding participant preferences and the reasons given for those preferences, we tallied their responses and conducted frequency counts for each pitch source. The majority of comments reflected preference for the piano (37.12%), followed by the pitch pipe (33.33%), the tuning fork (16.66%), and the hum (10.60%). Three of our participants (3.72%) expressed no specific preference.</p> <p>We analyzed the open-ended questions using descriptive coding ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref77">43</reflink>]). Authors analyzed and coded their own participants' data, then all authors discussed emergent themes together until consensus was reached, thus minimizing overlapping and redundant categories. We assessed trustworthiness in two steps: through independent parallel coding and by checking on the clarity of categories together and separately. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref78">43</reflink>] observed that "some researchers may wish to transform their qualitative data and/or codes into quantitative representations" in order to "corroborate quantitative data" (p. 86). Because we were interested in which pitch sources participants preferred, we chose to do frequency counts for each of the categories. Reliability was 82.64% using the formula (agreements ÷ total observations), which exceeded the acceptability threshold of 80% proposed by [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref79">32</reflink>].</p> <p>Five categories emerged in participants' responses: (a) clarity, (b) familiarity, (c) volume, (d) trustworthiness, and (e) timbre. We added a sixth category for responses indicating no preference for any particular pitch source. Of the 121 total comments (some participants made multiple comments), the greatest percentage (28.93%) was related to familiarity with the pitch source. The breakdown of comments by frequency and percentage appears in Table 2. Examples of comments in each category included "I prefer the pitch pipe and the piano. I think it is probably because these are what I am most familiar with" (familiarity); "I prefer the tuning fork because I feel it is the most constant tone and generally keeps its frequency while others might be slightly off" (trustworthiness); "The pitch pipe, because it was louder than the tuning fork" (volume); "Pitch pipe felt the clearest; I felt as though the notes were easiest to find from it" (clarity); and "I prefer the pitch pipe because it gave a warm sound" (timbre).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 2. Frequencies and Categories of Participant Responses.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Category</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="center">%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Familiarity/comfort with pitch source</td><td>35</td><td>28.93</td></tr><tr><td>Trustworthiness of pitch</td><td>22</td><td>18.18</td></tr><tr><td>Clarity of sound</td><td>20</td><td>16.52</td></tr><tr><td>Timbre of pitch source</td><td>16</td><td>13.23</td></tr><tr><td>Volume of pitch source</td><td>14</td><td>11.57</td></tr><tr><td>Other/no preference</td><td>14</td><td>11.57</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>121</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0138849715-9">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of multiple reference pitch sources on singers' accuracy in pitch-matching and intonation tasks. Participants matched pitch and sang most in tune after hearing the piano stimulus. These results are in contrast to previous research findings that indicated participants matched pitch best to timbres that are most like their own ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref80">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref81">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref82">42</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref83">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref84">54</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref85">59</reflink>]). Considering that the vocal hum is most like a sung pitch, our participants had less success with the pitch source most like their own voices when compared to the piano, the pitch pipe, and the tuning fork. In fact, of all the pitch sources that did not involve transposition, the hum provided the biggest pitch-matching and intonation challenges for our participants.</p> <p>Our participants sang least accurately in the tuning fork G condition (i.e., when the tuning fork sounded an A and the excerpt started on a G). Their performance of the first target pitch in that condition indicated poor pitch-matching ability (<emph>M</emph> = 84.19 cents, <emph>SD</emph> = 84.99), and they performed with even less accuracy on the second target pitch in the melody (<emph>M</emph> = 90.84 cents, <emph>SD</emph> = 90.51). The magnitude of these deviations was nearly one semitone from the target pitches. We were also surprised to notice the variability across the sample as reflected in the large standard deviations throughout. Clearly, the added transposition task was a challenge for our participants. To better gauge our participants' differential ability to match pitch and stay in tune irrespective of the transposition task and specifically target our research question regarding pitch sources, we conducted additional analyses of participants' cent deviations with the removal of the tuning fork G condition. We discovered significant differences, and these differences were most pronounced when comparing participants' performance after hearing a hummed A and all other sources.</p> <p>On the pitch-matching task (performance on the first target pitch), participants demonstrated less accuracy when matching a vocal hum compared to the pitch pipe and piano pitch sources. Perhaps this result was due to the vocal hum reference source used in the present study. The reference hum was approximately seven cents sharp in the treble condition and two cents flat in the bass condition, compared to A440. When considering [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref86">19</reflink>] reference to the "vocal generosity effect," that indicates that listeners may be more likely to call a note in-tune when it is sung than when it is in another timbre ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref87">28</reflink>]), it is presumable that the deviation could be considered normal. However, it is difficult to tell whether significant differences between the hum condition and the other conditions were due to the difference in reference pitch or the general nature of the human voice being more complex. We also speculate that their vibrato width may have contributed to these challenges given that it has been identified previously as a variable that can affect singers' intonation ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref88">58</reflink>]). Another explanation may be participants' lack of pitch-matching experience with the hum. Interestingly, participants did not prefer this pitch source, and their performance data corroborated that they were not as successful with it. Future studies are necessary to explore this variable more thoroughly.</p> <p>Our results do not lend support to the pedagogical practice of using tuning forks as a pitch source when transposition is required (i.e., using a fixed-pitch tuning fork for a song that starts on a different note). Our participants sang with greater accuracy when the starting note of the song (A) matched the fixed pitch of the tuning fork (A), suggesting that their poor performance accuracy in the tuning fork G condition was not a function of the tuning fork itself but rather an artifact of the nonunison pitch target. Based on these findings, we concur with [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref89">36</reflink>] recommendation that "it appears advantageous to present students with unison pitch targets" (p. 188). However, we believe that there are instances when music educators may continue to advocate for the use of tuning forks with transposition despite the lack of initial success because singers can use this practice as a means to improve their aural acuity over time, as suggested by [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref90">7</reflink>]. Rather than abandon its use entirely, we recommend that music teachers acknowledge that the tuning fork may provide unique challenges initially and that the piano will likely yield more immediate success. More research is needed (especially with longitudinal studies) to determine how singers' pitch matching and intonation develop across time with the use of tuning forks with transposition. Clearly, if tuning forks are to be used without transposition, their use would be limited to pieces that begin on an A.</p> <p>Not surprisingly, the largest percentage of participants' comments related to their preference for pitch sources that were familiar (28.93%), presumably due to their experiences using these sources in choral settings previously. The other most frequently cited reasons included having trustworthiness in the provided pitch source (18.18%) and clarity of sound (16.52%). Taken together, these comments may elucidate the importance of selecting reference pitch sources that ensure choristers' security before they begin pitch matching. Furthermore, the pitch should be provided such that it is clear and easily heard by all choristers, irrespective of their placement within the ensemble. One practical suggestion that could prove helpful is to provide reference pitches multiple times during rehearsals. For example, section leaders could each have tuning forks or pitch pipes that could be sounded closely in succession so that ensemble members have opportunities to hear the pitch wherever they are positioned during the rehearsal.</p> <p>It is important to consider some limitations in this study. Two of the pitch sources (hum and piano) provided an upper octave for female singers and a lower octave for male singers, whereas the other sources (pitch pipe and both tuning fork conditions) provided only a single octave. Although some male singers may have struggled with the octave displacement of the pitch pipe and tuning fork conditions, these are characteristics of these pitch sources as they are used in common practice. Also, participants heard the hum and piano pitch sources by a recording. This practice was necessary to ensure that the pitch sources participants heard were consistent in terms of pitch (and across multiple sites), but it may limit the generalizability of findings for those pitch sources. Finally, across all trials, participants only had to transpose using one of the pitch sources (the tuning fork G condition). The resulting inaccuracies in pitch matching and intonation may have been due in part to the unique nature of the transposition task, which only appeared in this condition. We did not include a similar condition with the other pitch sources (piano, pitch pipe, and vocal hum) to reflect the ways in which those sources are sometimes used in choral rehearsals.</p> <p>The findings of this study carry important implications for choral music educators and those who teach them. The theme of familiarity provides a strong rationale for why teachers engage in some of their classroom practices. For example, providing pitches on the piano seems to be a common practice, and as a result, many singers appear to be familiar with receiving pitches that way and sing with greater pitch accuracy accordingly. The introduction of a new method for providing pitches may carry with it initial challenges, and the benefits may not always surface immediately. In the same way that educators determine the challenge/benefit ratio of implementing any new teaching approach, we posit that all factors should be considered, including current success and short- and long-term goals. Given the variety of pitch sources available for choral directors, it is important that researchers continue to conduct empirical studies on the effectiveness of these sources that could be helpful to practitioners.</p> <hd id="AN0138849715-10">Author Biographies</hd> <p> <bold>Jessica Nápoles</bold> is an associate professor of choral music education at the University of North Texas. Her research interests include conducting expressivity, teacher talk, and choral pedagogy.</p> <p> <bold>D. Gregory Springer</bold> is an assistant professor of music education at the Florida State University. His research interests include music perception, music performance evaluation, and music teacher education.</p> <p> <bold>Brian A. Silvey</bold> is an associate professor and director of bands at the University of Missouri. His research interests include conducting pedagogy, instrumental music teacher preparation, and music performance evaluation.</p> <p> <bold>Kari Adams</bold> is a PhD student in music education at the University of North Texas. Her research interests include growth mind-set, choral spacing, and student-centered pedagogy.</p> <ref id="AN0138849715-11"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref54" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Audacity: Free audio editor and recorder (Version 2.2.1) [Computer application]. (2017). Retrieved from https://audacityteam.org</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ballard D. L. (2011). Relationships between college-level wind instrumentalists' achievement in intonation perception and performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 187, 19–32. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/41162321">http://www.jstor.org/stable/41162321</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref14" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bentley A. (1969). Measurement and development of musical abilities: Some research interests and findings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 17, 41–46. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/stable/3344182">http://www.jstor.org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/stable/3344182</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref64" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Boersma P., Weenink D. (2016). Praat (Version 6.0.19) [Computer software]. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.praat.org/">http://www.praat.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref15" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Byo J. L., Schlegel A. L. (2016). Effects of stimulus octave and timbre on the tuning accuracy of advanced college instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64, 344–359. doi:10.1177/0022429416662451</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Byo J. L., Schlegel A. L., Clark N. A. (2011). Effects of stimulus octave and timbre on the tuning accuracy of secondary school instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58, 316–328. doi:10.1177/0022429410386230</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref52" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cetto E., Dietrich G. (2003). Aural theory training in the choral warm-up: A warm-up curriculum. Choral Journal, 43(10), 19–25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref59" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref39" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cooper N. A. (1995). Children's singing accuracy as a function of grade level, gender, and individual versus unison singing. Journal of Research in Music Education, 43, 222–231. doi:10.2307/3345637</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Demorest S. M., Clements A. (2007). Factors influencing the pitch-matching of junior high boys. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 190–203. doi:10.1177/002242940705500302</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke R. A. (1985). Wind instrumentalists' intonational performance of selected musical intervals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 33, 101–111. doi:10.2307/3344730</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ely M. C. (1992). Effects of timbre on college woodwind players' intonational performance and perception. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40, 158–167. doi:10.2307/3345565</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A.-G., Buchner A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fyk J. (1985). Vocal pitch-matching ability in children as a function of sound duration. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 85, 76–89. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40317944">http://www.jstor.org/stable/40317944</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fyk J. (1987). Duration of tones required for satisfactory precision of pitch matching. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 91, 38–44. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40318060">http://www.jstor.org/stable/40318060</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geringer J. M. (1976). Tuning preferences in recorded orchestral music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 24, 169–176. doi:10.2307/3345127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geringer J. M. (1978). Intonational performance and perception of ascending scales. Journal of Research in Music Education, 26, 32–40. doi:10.2307/3344787</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geringer J. M. (1983). The relationship of pitch-matching and pitch-discrimination abilities of preschool and fourth-grade students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31, 93–99. doi:10.2307/3345213</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geringer J. M., MacLeod R. B., Madsen C. K., Napoles J. (2015). Perception of melodic intonation in performances with and without vibrato. Psychology of Music, 43, 675–685. doi: 10/1177/0305735614534004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geringer J. M., MacLeod R. B., Sasanfar J. K. (2015). In tune or out of tune: Are different instruments and voice heard differently? Journal of Research in Music Education, 63, 89–101. doi:10.1177/0022429415572025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geringer J. M., Worthy M. D. (1999). Effects of tone-quality changes on intonation and tone-quality ratings of high school and college instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47, 135–149. doi:10.2307/3345719</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green G. A. (1987). The effect of vocal modeling on pitch-matching accuracy of children in grades one through six (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest database. (UMI No. 8719865)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green G. A. (1990). The effect of vocal modeling on pitch-matching accuracy of elementary schoolchildren. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38, 225–231. doi:10.2307/3345186</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green G. A. (1994). Unison versus individual singing and elementary students' vocal pitch accuracy. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42, 105–114. doi:10.2307/3345495</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedden D. G., Baker V. A. (2010). Perceptual and acoustical analyses of second graders' pitch-matching ability in singing a cappella or with piano accompaniment. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 184, 35–48. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/27861481">http://www.jstor.org/stable/27861481</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hermanson L. W. (1972). An investigation of the effects of timbre on the simultaneous vocal pitch acuity of young children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 1410A.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huberty C. J., Morris J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 302–308. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.302</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hutchins S., Roquet C., Peretz I. (2012). The vocal generosity effect: How bad can your singing be? Music Perception, 30, 147–159. doi:10.1525/mp.2012.30.2.147</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kantorski V. J. (1986). String instrument intonation in upper and lower registers: The effects of accompaniment. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34, 200–210. doi:10.2307/3344749</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madsen C. K. (1966). The effect of scale direction on pitch acuity in solo vocal performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 14, 266–275. doi:10.2307/3344282</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madsen C. K., Edmonson F. A., Madsen C. H. (1969). Modulated frequency discrimination in relationship to age and musical training. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 46, 1468–1472. doi:10.1121/1.1911888</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madsen C. K., Madsen C. H. (2016). Teaching/discipline: A positive approach for educational development (5th ed.). Raleigh, NC: Contemporary Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mertler C. A., Vannatta R. A. (2013). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montgomery T. (1988). A study of the associations between two means of vocal modeling by a male music teacher and third-grade student's vocal accuracy in singing pitch patterns. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64/08, 2142A.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrison S. J. (2000). Effect of melodic context, tuning behaviors, and experience on the intonation accuracy of wind players. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48, 39–51. doi:10.2307/3345455</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrison S. J., Fyk. J. (2002). Intonation. In McPherson G., Parncutt R. (Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance: Creative strategies for teaching and learning. (pp. 183–198). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy S. (2017). Giving pitches with a tuning fork. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.choralnet.org">http://www.choralnet.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newcombe R. (2018). Effect size calculation for pairwise comparison. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.researchgate.net/post/Effect%5fsize%5fcalculation%5ffor%5fpairwise%5fcomparisons%5fSidak%5fadjustment">www.researchgate.net/post/Effect%5fsize%5fcalculation%5ffor%5fpairwise%5fcomparisons%5fSidak%5fadjustment</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parke C. S. (2013). Essential first steps to data analysis: Scenario-based examples using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Persellin D. C. (2006). The effects of vocal modeling, musical aptitude, and home environment on pitch accuracy of young children. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 168, 39–50. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319309">http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319309</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petzold R. G. (1966). Auditory perception of musical sounds by children in the first six grades. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Price H. E., Yarbrough C., Jones M., Moore R. S. (1994). Effects of male timbre, falsetto, and sine-wave models on interval matching by inaccurate singers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42, 269–284. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3345736">http://www.jstor.org/stable/3345736</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schlegel A. L., Springer D. G. (2018). Effects of accurate and inaccurate visual feedback on the tuning accuracy of high school and college trombonists. International Journal of Music Education, 36, 394–406. doi:10.1177/0255761418763914</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sengpiel E. (2014). Sengpiel Audio. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-centsratio.htm">http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-centsratio.htm</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silvey B. A., Napoles J., Springer D. G. (2018). Effects of pre-tuning vocalization behaviors on the tuning accuracy of college instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022429418806304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sims W. L., Moore R. S., Kuhn T. L. (1982). Effects of female and male vocal stimuli, tonal pattern length, and age on vocal pitch-matching abilities of young children from England and the United States. Psychology of Music [Special issue], 104–108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Small A. R., McCachern F. L. (1983). The effect of male and female vocal modeling on pitch-matching accuracy of first-grade children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31, 227–233. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3345175">http://www.jstor.org/stable/3345175</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sogin D. W. (1989). An analysis of string instrumentalists performed intonational adjustments within an ascending and descending pitch set. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37, 104–111. doi:10.2307/3344702</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sonosaurus (2018). TonalEnergy [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://itunes.apple.com">http://itunes.apple.com</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> SPSS (Version 24) [Computer software]. (2016). Chicago IL: SPSS Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trollinger V. L. (2003). Relationships between pitch-matching accuracy, speech fundamental frequency, speech range, age, and gender in American English-speaking preschool children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51, 78–94. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3345650">http://www.jstor.org/stable/3345650</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wapnick J., Freeman P. (1980). Effects of dark-bright timbral variation on the perception of flatness and sharpness. Journal of Research in Music Education, 28, 176–184. doi:10.2307/3345235</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams T. S. (1994). The effect of gender model on the pitch-matching accuracy of high school choral students. Contribution to Music Education, 21, 39–45.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf J. H. (1984). An investigation of natural male voice and falsetto male voice on fourth-grade children's ability to find pitch level. Missouri Journal of Research in Music Education, 5(2), 98–99.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Worthy M. D. (2000). Effects of tone-quality conditions on perception and performance of pitch among selected wind instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48, 222–236. doi:10.2307/3345395</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yarbrough C., Ballard D. L. (1990). The effect of accidentals, scale degrees, direction, and performer opinions on intonation. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 8(2), 19–22. doi:10.1177/875512339000800206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yarbrough C., Bowers J., Benson W. (1992). The effect of vibrato on the pitch-matching accuracy of certain and uncertain singers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 30–38. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3345772">www.jstor.org/stable/3345772</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yarbrough C., Green G., Benson W., Bowers J. (1991). Inaccurate singers: An exploratory study of variables affecting pitch-matching. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 107, 23–34. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40318418">http://www.jstor.org/stable/40318418</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yarbrough C., Karrick B., Morrison S. J. (1995). Effect of knowledge of directional mistunings on the tuning accuracy of beginning and intermediate wind players. Journal of Research in Music Education, 43, 232–241. doi:10.2307/3345638</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0138849715-12"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> D. Gregory Springer https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7923-726X</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jessica Nápoles; D. Gregory Springer; Brian A. Silvey and Kari Adams</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Jessica Nápoles is an associate professor of choral music education at the University of North Texas. Her research interests include conducting expressivity, teacher talk, and choral pedagogy.</p> <p>D. Gregory Springer is an assistant professor of music education at the Florida State University. His research interests include music perception, music performance evaluation, and music teacher education.</p> <p>Brian A. Silvey is an associate professor and director of bands at the University of Missouri. His research interests include conducting pedagogy, instrumental music teacher preparation, and music performance evaluation.</p> <p>Kari Adams is a PhD student in music education at the University of North Texas. Her research interests include growth mind-set, choral spacing, and student-centered pedagogy.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref87"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1229912
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Effects of Pitch Source on Pitch-Matching and Intonation Accuracy of Collegiate Singers
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nápoles%2C+Jessica%22">Nápoles, Jessica</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Springer%2C+D%2E+Gregory%22">Springer, D. Gregory</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7923-726X">0000-0001-7923-726X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Silvey%2C+Brian+A%2E%22">Silvey, Brian A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Adams%2C+Kari%22">Adams, Kari</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Research+in+Music+Education%22"><i>Journal of Research in Music Education</i></searchLink>. Oct 2019 67(3):270-285.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Music+Education%22">Music Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Singing%22">Singing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intonation%22">Intonation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accuracy%22">Accuracy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Music+Techniques%22">Music Techniques</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/0022429419863034
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-4294
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In this study, we examined the effects of multiple reference pitch sources on collegiate singers' accuracy in pitch-matching and intonation tasks. We also investigated which reference pitch source participants preferred and for what reasons. Participants (N = 99) sang a two-measure excerpt of "Joseph Dearest, Joseph Mine" after listening to the starting pitch of A on a pitch pipe, the piano, a vocal hum, or a tuning fork in two conditions. For one tuning fork condition, participants' starting pitch was an A, the same pitch as the tuning fork. For the other tuning fork condition, their starting pitch was a G, a different pitch than the tuning fork. We selected two pitches for analysis, each corresponding to the first syllable of the word "Joseph." We then analyzed pitch deviation of the two target notes from the reference pitch in each condition. Participants were most accurate in response to the piano and least accurate in response to the tuning fork when their starting pitch was a G. Participants expressed preference for the piano (37.12%) as their pitch source, followed closely by the pitch pipe (33.33%).
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1229912
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1229912
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/0022429419863034
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 270
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Music Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Singing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intonation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accuracy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Music Techniques
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Effects of Pitch Source on Pitch-Matching and Intonation Accuracy of Collegiate Singers
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nápoles, Jessica
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Springer, D. Gregory
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Silvey, Brian A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Adams, Kari
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-4294
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 67
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Research in Music Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1